Knowledge: Action and Differentiating Differences.
Remark: ontological concepts like Action, Difference, Event and some of their derivatives like Space and Time are noted with Capital Letters like German Nouns.
Introduction
Human Agency and Action will be discussed meaningfully only if our discussion refers to the immediate salient Obvious because Human Action takes place in our Time and Space.
Any difference Human Actions may cause are to be found in a Human’s World, the totality of Discernible Differences.
Discernible means that a Difference is potentially real, potentially becoming part of our understanding of our World.
Once a discernible Difference is revealed it is discerned. The respective Difference becomes part of our perceived World, our “Weltbild”.
Most of the Discernible Differences are independent from us.
In that sense, Human Beings really do not make any Difference or many Differences in and to the World.
Pointing to and at things and uttering a sound is the very first stage of this meaningful discussion.
Our first notions of meaning depend on pointing fingers or toes, providing an immediate context for any activity and sound uttering.
These are the very Co-occurrences that we become used to as babies in the womb (with and without finger or foot pointing as any mother may confirm) and provide a temporarily stable reference to Events and to our Ideas of and about Cause and Effect.
Physical experiments started by children in the bathroom with soap and water and continued later with more sophisticated tools by scientists with their clearly stated methods provide an extended context of the immediate salient and obvious world that can be shared mutually and repeated in another point in Time and Space with Similar Results. Hence ensuring that our Shared Semantical Spaces refer to at least some Similar Events at least.
Apart from that, any meaningful discussion needs a robust ontological theory because the objects of our reference in language are Mental Objects only.
Behind and Beyond our Eyes and Bodies Objects.
Behind of Our Eyes Objects, Mental Objects, are the very matter of anything we discuss and build our theories upon.
I noticed that philosophers quite often jump semantical categories to “prove” a point of such Behind the Eyes Theories. They refer to cases that are or were once real life Events like raising arms or shooting someone with or without interference only to a few instances later to refer to the realm of neuroscience, micro-biology or elementary physics and sometimes even moral responsibility.
If material findings within these in Front of the Eye Categories put a Behind the Eye Theory at risk or into question we may disqualify them as bottom up approaches inferior to the mind induced top down theories. Without laying out our theory of Ontology. How things came into being.
Ontology determines our understanding of Time, Space, Cause-Effect Relationships and Logic.
Logic and Language are some of our available tools.
We need to understand how they work.
And always explicitly transparently differentiate between categories we are going to use:
Are we referring to ontological, real world objects or to Mental Objects?
This understanding determines our understanding of Actions, Events, when they start for how long they last and when they end, what they trigger or not, what Consequences they entail.
It is hence always interesting to find out where we draw the line between this at first sight physical and obvious world of ours in front of us and our Mental Objects like Actions, Events, Causing and Effects.
Because as soon as we start to refer to categories like Actions, Events, Causing, Effects, Entities, Whole and Parts we need a theory of/about First Actions, First Causes, First Entities, First Wholes and First Parts and what Causes them.
And maybe also about the Last of all of these.
Quite an elegant solution to this problem has been offered by Thomas of Aquine: instead of continuing this infinite regress, First Firsts and so on, this infinite continuation of stringing one Event to another, he claims that LOGICALLY (most probably not factually) there MUST be a First First and that this is what EVERYONE MUST UNDERSTAND is God.
He claims that our understanding, our rational minds must necessarily come to the conclusion that only God can stop this regress. If anyone or anything is the First First it must logically be God.
This is a “proof” that is intricately linked to our ability to reason. And reasoning implies Events and Consequences. And reasoning happens in the realm of our minds and not physics.
As soon as we use categories like “First” we are tempted to use “First First” and then “First First First...” and so on we could continue endlessly, indefinitely (like in indefinite verbs like “is speaking” speaking speaking) or we could stop at some point (like in definite verbs like “spoke” to mark the end of a specific event).
And we do have valid references to both of these verb forms: in our daily experience it seems to us that events start, continue and end at some point in Time and Space.
With reference to a First Event, the First Event ever to occur or happen, the first moving of anything, the first thing to exist and to the first Cause to exist ever, Thomas of Aquine stated that there must necessarily be a first First. And he says, that when we SPEAK of the first mover, the first cause (hierarchical cause, not temporal) and the first creation of things, the first Cause of a Cause, when we speak about these, we USE (!) the word God.
The whole exercise was laid out to give a proof of God and what it resulted to was was a very honest relative proof: When we do x, we do y and hence do z.
X is “We are thinking about events in our world” and y is “we understand” and hence z “use the word God”.
What remains universally in this syllogism is a Relation of at least two kinds, two entities or as I will speak later of, two Events.
And two kinds can be not one.
Not being one implies that there must be at least one difference between Kind1 and Kind2. Event1 and Event2.
And being able to discover this difference Causes the very existence of things, or better: Events.
Because if there were only one undifferentiatable thing there would be nothing else. There would be one undifferentiated Whole not allowing Space and Time for anything else.
It is true that we can think of a world without Space and Time. But as long as we use categories like Events we need a theory about Time and Space and we shouldn’t be shy to try to understand particle physics for instance.
Or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
Because if and when we want to discuss Human Agency we have to disclose our “Weltbild”, our Justified, True Believes even if this concept is fallible.
Because speaking of Human Agency involves some kind of interaction in and with a world we believe to be the case.
Categories like Events already imply Actions and Activities that can’t be stopped deliberately without reasoning, without explaining why and when an Action or an Event starts, endures or ends. If and when at all.
And why a Whole is a Whole and not Part of some other Whole and what divides them and unites them.
And most importantly: what kind of theory of Space and Time we are referring to.
A fundamental and concrete example of this claim will follow below.
There might exist a few elementary categories that do not immediately imply the notion of Time and Space, namely the concept of “Whole”, “Parts” and “Difference”.
We can think and speak about these without immediately having to assume some kind of action that has to take place in our TimeSpace Continuum.
It is a possible world. A world in which some things just are what they are, without potentially undergoing changes of any kind. All of these “things” are self-identical and mereologicly fragile: nothing can be added or subtracted to/from them.
The very idea of “Whole”, “Parts” and “Difference” doesn’t change no matter what we add or remove to it.
As soon as we add or remove anything something to a Whole, it becomes a new Whole.
As soon as we add or remove anything to a Part it becomes a new Part.
As soon as there is a Discernible Difference, the Difference is there and can not be removed or altered anymore. It will remain a Difference, even if we later Discern that this Difference was of a different kind. It remains a Difference in at least one aspect, because either Time or Space will have undergone a Difference.
To add or remove something to or from something depends on the ability to Differentiate.
As a consequence, differentiabilty or discernibilty seems to be the most robust concept there is.
It is in my belief and understanding the most salient trait of Human Beings.
Our very reason to learn and survive.
Mereology, the discussion of the whole and its constituting parts and potential changes in both caused by some forces or actions lie at the very heart of this discussion.
Action-Cause-Difference-Event-Entity-Relation and Language
Difference is the most elementary Concept in the Human mind and fundamental for our Thinking and our Mental Concepts. We could say: no Difference no Us, no Nothing.
Hence, the following axioms:
Difference:
Difference Be Space.
Discernible Difference Be Time.
Action Cause Difference of Space and Time.
We call the Effect of this Causing of this Difference of Space or Time Event.
A Difference in Space causes a Difference in Time and vice versa.
All Differences are Self-Identical, hence all Events are Self-Identical, they do not differentiate themselves.
At least one Difference (something added or removed) in Event1 and Event1 turns into Event2.
A Difference in Space or Time, one at a time, cause our awareness.
Because if a difference occurred in both at the same time to the same extent, no difference would be caused, nothing would be opposed. We would only be the self-identical Event1 that is the Event1, leaving no Space for other Events.
Hence we must be an Event ourselves and depending on Events that are independent from and of us, Events we can be reflected upon. Analogically to our eye that can not observe itself while it is observing.
Human Agents, without assuming already that we are agents, are either a Difference or a discernible Difference.
We are Parts of the Whole.
And logically we can not be the whole, because here again, this would leave no Space or Time for anything else and we, as an Event E of all possible Events E1...En couldn’t reflect ourselves. Couldn’t oppose ourselves to any other Events.
If we are Parts of the Whole Whole, of Everything, we, as being a part of this Whole couldn’t change anything from within, from within us being part of the Whole without changing the Whole.
If we could and did, we would change the whole, we would make a Difference.
And this doesn’t seem to be impossible: by changing ourselves, making a difference in ourselves defined as an Event, a Discernible Difference, by finally Discerning Differences we became something that is opposed to everything, opposed to the Whole.
We must be something else than all the Discernible Differences, else we couldn’t Cause a Difference.
If and when we become active ourselves, we Cause a Difference in Space or Time, hence an Event.
Most Events occur without us. Most of the Events we Cause occur without our awareness and without our will.
A Difference in Space and Time is an Event.
All Differences are self-identical.
An Event is Self-Identical and is either Time- or Spaceless.
Because Space and Time can not be their own property.
At least two Events share the same Difference.
Shared Difference is Space.
Unshared Difference is non-identical Difference hence Time.
Two Related Differences are SpaceTime.
Identity
There are only two possible identities: Shared Difference and Self Identity.
Discerned difference is time.
A Difference causes at least one Relation with another Difference hence one Event Causes at least one Relation.
An Event is singular, self-identical only and can not be modified.
We can say that its Relation is a function of its Difference and vice versa: its Difference is a function of its Relation.
Actions and Functions can be identical.
Actions of any kind cause differences and hence discernible events.
The world is the sum of Events and hence the sum of Actions.
Shared Difference is Similarity.
Neuronal networks of any kind relate to Events.
Language is an Action of at least two human neuronal networks to potentially Relate to Events.
The best way to describe the relation between language and an Event is:
When discerning a Difference D1 we relate an expression e1 and share this act with at least one member of our language. All members are Events.
Once we have laid out the nature of Events it becomes easy and logic to discuss them.
Example:
If the Speed S1 of single Action A1 comprising a Distance D1, composed by at least two discrete Events E1...E2 put into relation with Time T1, a certain discrete amount of other events (E3...E4) as time units, then we must determine which Events they are.
Speed S1 would then be a mental concept derived from four discrete Events precisely.
Any event E1...En is determined by at least one discernible difference.
Any Action A must at least contain one Event E.
S1 = D1/T1
The Analyzed Action A1 contains the Events E1...E4.
Let’s have a look at Einstein’s mental picture of two photon clocks, one in System1 and another in System2. System1 and System2 must differentiate themselves in at least one property, else they would be identical.
The only Discerned Difference between System1 and System2 is that they don’t share the same Space.
Assumption: Two things can not be located at the same space and time simultaneously.
Assumption: A photon can not propagate without Space.
S1 being the speed of light, 3*10^5 km/s.
D1 consisting of the Events E1...E2, the necessary space D1 for a propagated photon between two mirrors.
T1 consisting of the Events E3...E4, namely the photon starting at mirror1 (E1) and arriving at mirror2 (E4).
The second Analyzed Action A2 contains the Events E5...E8.
S2=S1=D2/T2
S1 being the same, identical speed of light.
Conclusion1: The speed of light must be self-identical, else it could not be identical and inalterable.
D1 consisting of the Events E5...E6, the necessary space D2 for a propagated photon between two mirrors.
T2 consisting of the Events E7...E8, namely the photon starting at mirror3 (E7) and arriving at mirror4 (E8).
For the Actions A1 and A2 to be different Actions, they must differ in at least one Discernible Difference.
Since it is logically excluded that both Systems 1 and 2 can occupy the same space or time simultaneously, I am suggesting that they differ in either D or T, which is indicated with the differing nomenclature for D to D1 and D2 and for T to T1 and T2.
The two Discernible Differences between D and T allow for the eight different Events E1...E8.
Hence, the condition to allow for at least one Discernible Difference is satisfied.
Now, let’s start.
In order to allow a difference between Action1 and Action2, at least one additional Event E9 must take place. This additional Event E9 is the first of E9...En possible Events, Discernible Differences, that Action3 potentially can consist of.
To either D1 or D2 or T1 or T2 an additional Event must be added. This event will alter the ratio of either D1/T1 or D2/T2. This Action comprising of at least E9 is a Discernible Difference of one of the Events E1...E8.
It does not matter where the Event E9 will be attached.
The Event E9 will result in a Shared Difference.
Because any event added to either System1 or System2 will result in the same Difference: either D or T will be altered to the amount of Event E9.
Conclusion2: Any Event attached to one or the other of two related Systems creates an Identical Difference. In our example, either the Time T or the Distance D can not be identical in both systems.
Conclusion3: Any Event Ex in our world causes a Discernible Difference x in either Distance D (Space) or Time T.
Conclusion4: Since Human Beings are part of a whole, any event changes their space or their time.
Anything not being part of the Whole will be unaffected by any of the Events Ex in the totality of all possible related Systems.
Systems are related as soon as an Action Ax Cause Cx a Discernible Difference DDz.
Applied to Mister Smith kills Mister Jones with a gun:
Mister Smith = E1
Gun = E2
Mister Jones = E3
Kills = A1
Mister Jones dead = E5
If Mister Smith pulls the trigger or throws the gun at Mister Jones and kills him, doesn’t make a difference, because the gun is the instrument in the sentence above.
The structure of Discernible Differences is independent of the way we talk about it.
E1 causes a Discernible Difference DD1 = E4 in E2 which causes a Discernible Difference DD2 = E5 in E3.
E4 is attached to E2, E5 is attached to E3.
E5 is the result because it is the last and mandatory event in the Action A1.
Without E5 A1 is not completed. This is why the verb in E5 must necessarily be in the finite and not infinite form.
Events of Actions represented with infinite forms point to a process and must mandatorily include at least one Event represented by a finite verb form if an action is finite or will be finite at some point.
E5 implies that there are no vital signs in Mister Jones (E3).
The semantics of “Kills” implies that no vital signs are Discernible. If they were still discernible, E5 wouldn’t have been discernible and A1 would have been altered to A2 because the Final Discernible Event necessary for A1 has been altered.
Conclusion5: some Events in Actions are mandatory namely the final ones. Differences maybe attached to any of the events without altering the Action A except for the mandatory ones, often represented by the finite verb forms like “dead”, “gave”, “went” etc.
Every finite action includes at least one finite Event Ef.
Applied to: “I am lifting my arm” and while uttering the sentence really doing it...
A1: “am lifting” consisting of:
E1: I
E2: my arm
E3: any Discernible Difference attachable to E1 or E2, hence Causing either Event E1 or E2 to become E4 or E5.
E4: Consequence of Attachment of E3 to either E1 or E2
E5: Consequence of Attachment of E3 to either E1 or E2
A1 doesn’t include E6 “lifted”.
A1 must consist of at least one Event. In this case, A1 must include one Discernible Difference at least, hence at least one Event, Event E3 is necessary, namely an attachment of Event E3 to an Event in Space and Time, logically at least to either E2 or E1. Attaching E3 a Discernible Difference in Space or Time Causes a Discernible Difference DD1 in the TimeSpace of E2, my arm, turning E2 to E4 or E5 and turning E1 either to E4 or E5.
E6 is not mandatory in A1 since A1 is defined by and infinite action. A possible attachment of A6 to E2 causes A1 to turn into A2.